Daily Management Review

Study Finds The U.S. Midwest To Yield Best Benefit From Renewable Plant Installation


11/27/2019


Study looks beyond cost benefits and delved deeper in the health benefit of switching to renewable energy.



According to a study, the U.S. Midwest seems to be the best place for investing in “wind turbines and solar panels” as compared to rest of the country for the installation in the said region promises to “deliver the biggest cuts in climate-warming emissions and improvements in public health”.
 
The above mentioned study was conducted by researchers from the “Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Carnegie Mellon University”, which states that the benefit of investing in renewable energy will partially be proportionate to the displacement of “coal-fired power plants or cleaner-burning fuels like natural gas”. Moreover, one needs to also take into account the population size as well as their “proximity to power plants” which will eventually translate into cost benefits for spreading clean energy which will reflect as the impact on public health for “removing pollution from the air”.
 
Furthermore, the study also revealed that “a megawatt hour (Mwh) of wind-powered electricity installed in the Upper Midwest achieves about $113 worth of benefits” while in California its “$28 per Mwh” and the latter has a wide range of “renewables and gas”, while solar and other renewable sources also showed similar values.
 
In the words of the author of the study, Jonathan Buonocore:
“There’s a lot of coal there and there’s a lot of people who live in the region and downwind of the region”.
 
While, Buonocore noted that some pollution from Midwest gets carried to the people living on the East Coast region. Under the said study the U.S. was divided into ten regions, while the largest benefits from renewable energy installation showed in “the Upper Midwest, Great Lakes and Lower Midwest”, while at the other end of the list with the lowest benefits were “California, the Southwest and the Rocky Mountains”. Furthermore, Reuters also reported:
“Both the social cost of carbon - a measurement of the economic harm caused by carbon dioxide through its climate and other impacts - and lower mortality rates were factored into the cost benefit analyses, the study said”.
 
However, the study didn’t take into account the “impact of fugitive methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain”, reflected Buonocore, as methane is a “more potent” green house gas than CO2. When it comes to the technologies of carbon capture and sequestration of coal plants versus installation of renewable energy plants to but down carbon emissions, both seemed comparable in terms of cost, although the former yielded less “health benefits in most regions”.
 
 
 
References:
reuters.com







Science & Technology

Financial giants and US government turn to quantum computers

Long Way To Go For Coronavirus Vaccine, Say Drgumakers

Google's subsidiary launches recognition service for photoshopped images

Unapproved Drug For Coronavirus Treatment And Testing Given By Gilead Sciences

Live Facial Recognition Cameras Will Be Used By London Police

Driverless Vehicle For Its Ride-Sharing Service Unveiled By GM’s Cruise

Amazon will allow customers to pay with palms instead of cards

Complete Computer System For Self Driving Cars Launched By Qualcomm

In A Lifetime We Could Accumulate 20Kg Micro-Plastic In Our Body

Creator Of The First 'Gene-Edited' Babies Of The World Gets 3 Year Jail Term In China

World Politics

World & Politics

Ex-head of Mexican Pemex will be transferred to Madrid prison

China Releases First Detailed Study Of Coronaviurs Attack, Finds Elderly At Most Risk

EBA Finds Alarming Compliance Results For Gender Diversity Among Banks

Record high temperature observed in Antarctica

Venezuela to initiate international litigation against USA because of sanctions

Coronavirus Death Toll 204 In China, US Asks Americans Not To Go China

Hong Kong protesters block railway to mainland

Heavy rain kills 47 people in southeast Brazil